One of the main functions of legal systems is to provide remedies for violations (or sometimes expected violations) of the primary rights conferred on them. Thus, if someone is injured by the negligence of another, a claim for compensation usually arises. If he is killed, his family members may have an independent right to compensation, and so on. Other types of remedies may include those for court orders that require the offender to execute or refrain from taking a particular course of action, very often the one to which he was or was obliged under primary law to refrain from doing so. These rights are often very complex in detail. For example, the amount of damages may vary if the illegal act is a misdemeanor, as opposed to a breach of contract. Similarly, in many systems, some remedies must be granted by law, while others are at the discretion of the court. To illustrate the remedies available in both British legal systems, reference may be made to Lawson (1980) and Walker (1974). Understand your rights and eligibility for DACA. Below you will find a case law that defines the notion of legal claim. A legal claim is a claim that is legally recognized and enforceable. [In folwell`s estate, 68 N.J. Eq.
728, 731 (N.J. 1905)]. Constitutions will also differ according to the extent to which human rights recognized by international law or the treaty are recognized in national law. For example, in some European countries, the European Convention on Human Rights and related decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are transposed into national law and take precedence over all national laws that are incompatible with them. In others, such as the United Kingdom, courts must interpret the legislation as much as possible in such a way that it is in conformity with the Convention, but do not have the power to punish it, even if they consider it to be clearly contradictory. Simply put, the court can enforce legal rights against individuals and also against the government. A legal claim is a legally recognized and protected interest. Any devaluation of a legal claim is also punishable. Legal rights affect every citizen. Legal rights are also available to all citizens, without discrimination on the basis of caste, creed and sex. More recent versions, such as those of Raz (1984a, 1984b), take a completely different path. To say that X is a rights holder means, in their opinion, to say that his interests or any aspect thereof are sufficient reason to impose obligations on others, either not to interfere with X in the performance of an action, or to secure him in something.
Among other things, this circumvents the problem of the rights of third parties, since the statement is simple that it is only a question of whether the system recognizes the interests of Z as the reason for the obligations of X and Y or whether it is only the interests of X and Y. Raz (1997) pointed out that this does not mean that only the interests of the rightholder are relevant to the question of whether any something must be recognized as a right. Considerations of general or common interest may also be relevant. Many of the related issues are not limited to rights, but are shared with duties and powers, so only a brief overview is given. Legal rights are clearly rights that exist under the rules of legal systems or on the basis of decisions of the competent bodies assigned to them. They raise a number of different philosophical questions. (1) Whether legal rights are conceptually related to other types of rights, mainly moral rights; (2) What is the analysis of the concept of legal claims; (3) What types of companies may hold legal rights; (4) Whether there are types of rights that are exclusively subject to legal systems or that have at least much greater importance in legal systems, as opposed to morality; (5) What rights should legal systems create or recognize? Question (5) is first and foremost a question of moral and political philosophy and, in general, is no different from the question of what duties, authorizations, powers, etc. should create or recognize legal systems. It will therefore not be discussed here. In the above examples, we can say that the right token, unlike the right type, arises only when the condition of its instantiation is triggered. But legal systems sometimes say that the right token exists before one of the conditions for exercising the right exists. Essentially, it is the difference between the statement „if p, X is entitled to A“ and „X has a right if p, to A“.
In the latter case, the implication is that the right token exists now, not just that it will exist.
